I don't know whether you're joking about the staying pink bit or not, but on the off chance that you aren't, the primer is just there because it adheres to the metal better than paint. It's an intermediate layer between the metal and paint. It's gonna get painted over, and then it'll look like the functional aircraft.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

I know that Russia generally doesn't have hangar facilities to park their aircraft in, that this is one disadvantage that they have to live with.

But I have a hard time believing that they couldn't get some kind of pavillion-type temporary structure or something. It seems like a major issue from an intelligence standpoint.

Like, if those aircraft vanished into a hangar and then came out two months later, maybe they've had parts swapped and they're a good, new aircraft. We wouldn't be able to tell from a satellite.

But because we can see all the work that Russia does on their warplanes, we can make some pretty good inferences about what they're doing, even with low resolution. So that makes the problem a lot simpler -- just identify which ones are the ones that we know don't function. I suspect that it's probably possible to -- especially with military recon satellites, rather than the commercial stuff being used above -- distinguish between individual aircraft, like by getting a side view of their tail sections.

For some stuff, they can maybe fly the aircraft to a facility that does have hangars. But they can't do that if the aircraft was damaged badly enough that it can't fly.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I also don't get it. How much could a quonset hut cost, compared to fighter jet?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago

Plus, I kind of suspect that maintaining aircraft outdoors when there's sleet coming down or whatever is no fun.

And I dunno what they do when hail comes. Maybe that's not as much of a thing in Russia.

checks map

Ah, apparently the Great Plains in the US are pretty much the global center of hailstorms, so I guess that they dodged that one.

https://eos.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/2019RG000665-Figure-21-map-and-legend-sized-for-Eos-800-wide.png

kagis

It sounds like they are, in fact, building a number of them, so maybe they've done the same calculus and come to the same conclusion.

This move follows increased threats from Ukrainian attack drones and missiles. According to sources, the hangars are intended to protect aircraft from ATACMS ballistic missile submunitions. Additionally, these structures prevent satellites and other optical detection systems from determining whether a hangar is empty or occupied, enhancing operational security.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 months ago (1 children)

So did they damage real aircraft, or did they damage decoys?

[–] [email protected] 8 points 3 months ago

They were real.

[–] Thrashy 6 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Well clearly they ran out of light gray primer and had to mix in some red to finish the job, and now the planes will be pursued across Russia by friend and foe alike while awkward sexual tension brews between the pilots and the stranded army nurses they pick up at an abandoned Siberian airfield on the way to Vladivostok for repairs.